18 ms·

I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments, and none of them, describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters

I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments, and none of them, describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. The charges relate to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but hush money is not a crime. It's also not a crime to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. My understanding is that the crime is around how the money was delivered. I'm having trouble finding a good description, but CNN has this to say: > Hush money payments aren't illegal. Prosecutors are weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization for how they reflected the reimbursement of the payment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York. > Prosecutors are also weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree for allegedly falsifying a record with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal another crime, which in this case could be a violation of campaign finance laws. That is a Class E felony, with a sentence minimum of one year and as much as four years. I'm not a lawyer and it's hard to parse the above, but it sounds very technical. It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Overall this seems like a weak case to me.

sanderjd 4y ago
The theory as I understand it is that the payment was a large unreported contribution to his presidential campaign. It's not legal to do that, and the prosecutors believe they can demonstrate that's what happened.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines. `The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm was in turn paid $175,000 by the campaign and about $850,000 by the party during six weeks in July and August 2016. Campaign spending disclosure reports described most of those payments to Perkins Coie as having been for “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”` https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-campaign-spending.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clint...
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    If they're a dime a dozen (I don't think they are), then we should either make sure to provide high visibility instances in order to dissuade others from breaking the law, or we should change the laws if we don't think they are worth enforcing.
    - carlivar 4y ago
      Note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined for a campaign finance violation. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc-clinton-campaign-agree-to-steele-dossier-funding-fine https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc...
      - ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
        How is it relevant what someone else has done to this indictment?
        brigandish 4y ago
        Because it shows politically motivated use of legal power, which is especially bad. I'm all for prosecuting Trump and Clinton and all the rest of them, but to only prosecute Trump when there's a sea of malfeasance stinking up the place seems like an overwhelmingly bad idea.
        XorNot 4y ago
        How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
        koolba 4y ago
        > How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). > Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits. Which do you consider a more direct violation of campaign finance law with direct intent to benefit a campaign? 1. Paying a lawyer to pay a woman to not speak about an elicit affair from a decade prior. 2. Paying a lawyer to pay a private investigator to compile a negative dossier about your political opponent in the, at the time, current US general election.
notch898a 4y ago
I'm probably wrong, but google indicates statute of limitations for misdemeanors is only 2 years in New York. Curious how this ties into things, the stormy daniels fiasco is what 5+ years ago? Surely there is a felony charge in there?
- shagie 4y ago
  I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). (late edit - it was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 - not the YouTube link) The statue of limitations in New York doesn't accumulate when the defendant is outside of the state. I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube. > I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page legal opinion just to figure out what you already seem to know.
    - shagie 4y ago
      I was mistaken on the link - my comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 (alas, lazy clipboarding and not double checking) Page 18 of ALITO, J., dissenting. It is on page 82 of the pdf overall.
      - notch898a 4y ago
ncallaway 4y ago
> describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. That's because the charges haven't been announced yet. The facts that we know are that a grand jury has voted to indict Donald Trump and has delivered a True Bill to the prosecutors. The indictment is at this moment sealed. It should be unsealed shortly (speculation was a timeline of tonight/tomorrow, but I could also see it being early next week). So, it's not known publicly what the specific charges are. Which is why people haven't described them in this thread. They're not yet known. > most stories are vague. This is partly because there's not a lot of information, but it's also because the news media needs to pump out an endless amount of content around this story (since it's both historic, and they have a profit incentive to keep people reading/watching), but there's really only a few paragraphs* of information that's currently available or relevant. > It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. The speculated charges (which, again, are speculation, not the known public charges) involve a crime which is, on its own, a misdemeanor. The crime becomes a felony if it was committed with intent to commit another crime. So, if (and again, this is a big if, since it's not the actual charges, just speculation) the prosecutors are going down that road, they don't actually have to prove two crimes. They have to prove the first crime and intent to commit another crime. They don't actually have to prove the facts of the second crime. > Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Intent is hard to prove, but it's also something that gets proved in court cases frequently. For example, murder is (in almost all states) an intent crime. Prosecutors are still able to charge and convict on murder. So, while an intent element makes a case harder to make, it doesn't by default make it impossible. For a crime similar to the being speculated about, consider Breaking and Entering. In many states a B&E is only a crime if it's done with the intent to commit another crime (in Washington state, for example, this is "Residential burglary" RCW 9A.52.025†). But if someone is caught breaking into a property at night with a ski mask and a burlap sack, prosecutors won't find it a challenge to demonstrate the requisite intent. > Overall this seems like a weak case to me. I think it's really too early to say at this point. I'd at least wait until the indictment is unsealed and released publicly so we can know the actual charges. Once we know the charges, and a summary of the available evidence, we'd be in a much better position to make a claim about the quality of the case. * There's really only a single sentence of _news_ to report, but there's probably a decent amount of explaining the process that can reasonably happen, since most people aren't familiar with the details of the process. † https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52&full=true#9A.52.025 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52&full=true...
vharuck 4y ago
>It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Michael Cohen pled guilty and was sentenced to three years for the campaign finance law, and he's been very vocal about Trump's knowledge and involvement. So proving intent doesn't seem impossible. And, by definition, falsifying business records comes with a record of false information.
- guelo 4y ago
  I've seen arguments in the right-ophere that Cohen improperly plead guilty to a non-crime. Which seems like a weird thing for a high-level well-connected lawyer to do.
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    Cohen was not crime lawyer. And any high-level lawyer will tell you that even them will not represent themselves in a criminal investigation nor are they immune from make false confessions under the pressure of the federal government.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    There was a fairly effective push to dismantle groups linked to Trump's electoral success [0]. They had a similar air of bullshit charges that only became an issue because prosecutors wanted to achieve political ends. It is weird, but it is likely he is being threatened. If they can get Trump arrested for this, they can certainly put Cohen in jeopardy. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html?mtrref=duckduckgo.com&gwh=8FFFF3C458157262674CFD8DADD4245F&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-tr... EDIT Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#2022_New_York_state_indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#2022_New_York_sta... is probably going to fall into the same basket
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Worth mentioning that Stormy Daniels claims that she and her child were threatened over this issue. > 'Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.' And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, 'That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom.' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-alleged-affair-cbs-60-minutes-threatened-car-parking-lot-daughter-a8273586.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stormy-dan...
analog31 4y ago
From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us. Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought in the first place? That's a question I don't know how to answer, for any "white collar" or prominent defendant.
- brigandish 4y ago
  How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?
  - unixgoddess 4y ago
    same question here...
    - pseingatl 4y ago
      Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.
      - berniedurfee 4y ago
        Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
paul7986 4y ago
No Trump fan but this is more political/media theater B.S. and brought on by all his many deep pocketed enemies. He surely has tons due to his awful mouth (shut it and do your job like Biden does for the people or Bush did or Obama). Nothing will happen to him just more lame reality TV type drama that gets ratings.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  Worse. As many have pointed out: "If he gets arrested, he's your next president." Wouldn't be the first leader whose arrest led to raging popularity and revolt.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Prominent Republicans (like John Bolton) have claimed that Democrats are intentionally targetting Trump to increase his popularity with his base so that he'll definately become the nominee and then be easy to beat. Whether you believe that or not, its wild that we're in such a position that claims like that could be made.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Democrats explicitly had commercials pumping up Trump aligned Republicans in Senate primary races in swing states because Democrats thought they would be easier to defeat (they were right).
    - esja 4y ago
      It's not wild. It's precisely what they did in 2015, as revealed by WikiLeaks: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Wow...who needs friends with enemies like that. But jeez...you'd think they would have at least learned their lesson. I was pretty convinced 2 years ago (around the time of the injecting hydrochloric acid comments) that Trump would be almost universally be considered a national embarrassment by now. If there weren't powerful people running around deliberately trying to inflate support for him hoping it will somehow work out in their own interests I'm still pretty sure he would be.
wodenokoto 4y ago
My understanding from legal eagle on YouTube is that the payment was done illegally. Both in terms of taxes and in terms of how you are allowed to spend money on campaigning (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign)
- eldritch_4ier 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - watwut 4y ago
    All of that might be objective. Not liking a lot what Republicans do does not mean you are unfairly biased.
  - Seam0nkey 4y ago
    >he doesn't like laws that go after social media platforms From a legal perspective you don't gotta be biased to reach the conclusion that there's not much states can do. Section 230 and and the 1st amendment are both crazy strong tools in their pockets.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Trump has made it impossible for anyone to remain unbiased about Trump.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Did you watch his video? LegalEagle thinks the charges against Trump have serious weaknesses. Perhaps not as biased as you think.
    - HelloNurse 4y ago
      It is possible to be both biased (hoping that the charges against Trump stick) and realistic (assessing on the basis of professional expertise that the charges aren't as strong as one would like). I'm under the impression that unfortunately such a basic level of maturity is unusual when USA politics and USA law are concerned, let alone the combination of both.
jmyeet 4y ago
It's too early to say if it's a weak case because we just don't know the details. There are (AFAIK unconfirmed) reports that there are 34 charges in the indictment. You wouldn't get that just from the Stormy Daniels payoff so, if true, there's more to this indictment. Maybe related to the Trump Organization fraud? We can only speculate. This will be unsealed when Trump is processed and arraigned. I believe this is set for Tuesday. Note that processing includes the mug shot, fingerprinting and DNA. My understanding is the payoff was upgraded to a felony because it had to be. If it were a misdemeanour it would be beyond the statute of limitations. So this isn't even a case where the prosecutor has "insurance" with a lesser charge. A felony seems to require actual intent, as in knowing this would impact the election. Whose to say it wasn't done to protect his marriage, for example? Of course, there may be evidence to support this. But I have trouble believing the Manhattan DA would indict just on this (alleged) offence. There has to be more to this. Hopefully we'll learn a lot more next week.
- unit_circle 4y ago
  This is really all that's worth saying until next week
- mike_d 4y ago
  > Note that processing includes the mug shot, fingerprinting and DNA. He fought E Jean Carroll for three years to avoid giving a DNA sample that could have proved his guilt or innocence in the sexual assault case. Once he is booked he will have a record in the national DNA database (CODIS) that can be checked against any physical evidence such as Carroll's dress as well as outstanding unsolved cases.
TeeMassive 4y ago
Just the statute of limitation should have made any judge laugh. It's the justice system of New York state that's on trial, not Trump.
- dbbk 4y ago
  It's well within the statute of limitations for 2 reasons; 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    > 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID for some civil cases, not criminal ones: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tollin... > 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused Surely you must be trolling? I mean gee, all these Ivy League law professors (most of them not being Trump supporters) must not have been aware of that, somehow...
    - dbbk 4y ago
      In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up. Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired.
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        > In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up. Actually I did, even if the burden of proof was on you. And no, statute of limitation doesn't "pause" for criminal cases for any reasons as for the reason of their existence is memories and evidence fading over time and to avoid wrongful convictions. Being out of state has no effect on that. > Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired. That's not the only novel legal theory being at play to convict for the first time a President here.
asudosandwich 4y ago
The punctuated green site from yesteryear had a special moderation carve-out for funny comments distinct from the insightful contributors to keep things on track and interesting. But the parent poster dignifies neither and is better deserving of an Onion headline IMHO. >> I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments >> I'm not a lawyer and it's hard to parse the above. >> Overall this seems like a weak comment to me.
anonymousiam 4y ago
The indictment was filed under seal, so why does CNN and the New York Times know what's in it?
- thelittleone 4y ago
  "Sources"
  - happythebob 4y ago
    Thanks for your curious conversation. This is what Hacker News is all about.
- public_defender 4y ago
  Think of it like a book where the publisher releases a preview chapter. There are hints in the court record which, despite sealing of an indictment, would give a determined investigator enough information to speculate on the charges in the grand jury. The DA office probably just provided the media with some top-line updates on the process so that there would be a general understanding of the big news to head off speculation or a leak.
- dev_daftly 4y ago
  Because they leaked what they think is the most damaging information to their propaganda arm
unixgoddess 4y ago
that's how it seems to me too, but CNN claims "30 counts", so hopefully they have more to it. If they only have a weak case, it will be easy to pass it as an attempt to prevent him from running 2024, so it will only serve to further polarize the country
oxfordmale 4y ago
If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? I understand even his loyal voter base are now sometimes embarrassed by his actions. For example, him storing confidential papers at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency finished. That is different from when he was first elected as President. At that time he couldn't do anything wrong. I am sure the right wing press will spin this as a witch hunt, but will it fly with the voters on the ground? Does anyone have more insight in this?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? Trump organized a violent coup against his own government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his political rival. So will his indictment over an unrelated crime help his campaign? No. It's hosed from the start. Because he organized a coup against the government, and everyone saw it on TV.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Unfortunately a lot of people are HAPPY he did those things
    - srotajuu 4y ago
      About 40% of those who are politically engaged, which is pretty consistent with his popular vote share of 45-47%, to his opponents' 48-51%. It'll come down to the campaigns and the electoral college. He is not sure to be defeated but he will continue to be an underdog unless he broadens his message.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  It's weak case that has unified the party and base around Trump. Desantis fought with Trump two days ago, is now about him like a dear friend. If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here. Bragg literally campaigned on arresting Trump too.
darthrupert 4y ago
Is it possible that this would be simply an opening to gain further investigative access? Like how Al Capone was caught for tax issues?
protocolture 4y ago
Yes it seems weak. However: 1 iirc Grand Jury's are the ones that get to do everything behind closed doors. So we wouldnt know if they had a smoking gun until after trial possibly. 2 The US has a history of pursuing people it doesn't like through financial crimes. Rico etc. I think its easy to see this in the lens of "oh its another attack on trump that will go away again" and if you experience your entire life through the highs and lows of the media cycle thats quite possibly going to be the case. But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with.
- mightybyte 4y ago
  > But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with. The thing that surprised me yesterday was learning that being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President of the United States! So it seems like a pretty impotent "hanging". I had assumed that barring him from running for re-election was the major motivation behind pursing these indictments, but I guess that's not the case. So that suggests that these moves are mainly about public opinion? If that's what it is, then this particular indictment seems like the weakest of the possible ones that have been talked about. Taking all this into account, I can't help but think that this kind of plays into Trump's desire to be the center of attention.
  - vitus 4y ago
    > being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office This depends on the state. Being convicted of a felony in Florida bars you from running for public office or voting in the state (until granted clemency). A conviction in Georgia would similarly bar Trump from voting in Florida, but not one in New York (which does not disenfranchise felons). But yes, it doesn't affect his ability to run for federal office, even if it would make it hard for him to campaign from jail.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
raxxorraxor 4y ago
To me this also pales on comparison to investment benefits legislature seems to enjoy a little too much. This is not the core problem of corrupt politics.
dbbk 4y ago
The gist of it is, the hush money payments were covered up by filing false business records claiming it was for "lawyer's fees". That's the first issue. The second issue is that it can be considered an improper campaign contribution because it was to benefit the campaign. In order for it to be a felony, you need to connect the two together. Otherwise it's a misdemeanour. In terms of it being a "weak case", I would just say let's wait to see what the prosecutors' argument is - this will be released when the indictment is unsealed on Thursday. It's a document-heavy case. There is a witness who carried out the crime (Michael Cohen), and other witnesses as well. I would also posit that the prosecutors, and a grand jury (who unanimously voted to indict) would not take the unprecedented step to charge a former President unless they thought there was a strong case. So, let's just wait and see.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  [flagged]
- cxf12 4y ago
  Cohen plead guilty to the hush money as an excessive personal campaign contribution. Going forward, it's not likely that the contribution can be recharacterized for the purposes of charging DJT with a crime. This case is going to be tossed out of court.
- firstlink 4y ago
  > lawyer's fees This seems to be a very popular way to label questionable payments during presidential campaigns, given that both major candidates did it in 2016.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
biorach 4y ago
> Overall this seems like a weak case to me. The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2] > Prosecuting Mr Trump for the campaign-finance violation relies on a convoluted argument. In 2016 Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer (who later went to prison himself), paid $130,000 to Ms Daniels out of his own pocket. Mr Trump allegedly reimbursed Mr Cohen with payments disguised as routine legal expenses. Falsifying business records can be a misdemeanour under New York law. The felony indictment would indicate that prosecutors are going to argue that the minor crime facilitated a more serious one: failing to declare the payment, which was made a few weeks before the election, as a de facto campaign expense. > The payment probably did benefit the campaign and it was indeed undeclared. Mr Cohen, the lawyer, pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance law. But legal theory for prosecuting Mr Trump in Manhattan is untested. The campaign-finance rules that he may have broken are federal. The accounting rule is a state one. Linking the two in this way is unusual, and a judge may decide it is unwarranted. And today it has a leader [3], archived at [4] which goes into greater detail, and concludes > If Mr Trump is to be prosecuted, it should be for something that cannot be dismissed as a technicality, and where the law is clearer. The Manhattan DA’s case looks like a mistake. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.econo... [3] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-don... [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.econo...
- happythebob 4y ago
  Weak consequences doesn't mean legal. One state investigation has no impact on the others.
- abustamam 4y ago
  The second archived link seems to still be pay walled. Here's a mirror just in case https://archive.is/0rJIh https://archive.is/0rJIh
vitus 4y ago
As other commenters have pointed out, the actual indictment is sealed, so we won't find out the concrete charges until he's arraigned. I've recently served on a jury for a criminal trial, so I've learned some things about the process that courtroom dramas did not teach me. One: stacked charges (in this case, 30+) can indicate repeat offenses of the same crime / crimes on separate occasions (usually denoted as separate dates). I do not think this is simply a matter of a single hush money payout (or two, as has been reported in the news). I would not be surprised if there are 10 or more distinct events in play. edit: Note that the jury can render separate verdicts for each charge if desired. Two: the grand jury merely decides whether there's enough evidence to bring this to trial. The standard of evidence for a grand jury is much lower than the actual trial jury. Three: this is more theoretical because I'd be surprised if this happens, but the defendant in any criminal proceeding is more than entitled to neither testify on his own behalf, and the defense is not required to call any witnesses to the stand, as the presumption is that Trump is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Four: I'm going to paraphrase the judge in my case slightly, but "beyond an unreasonable doubt does not mean beyond any possible doubt. There is always going to be some shred of doubt. Beyond an unreasonable doubt means that you have a moral conviction that the defendant committed the alleged crimes." > it sounds very technical That's totally expected, as is the case for even the most mundane-seeming laws. The jury is not expected to have a legal background. The judge will instruct them regarding the points of the law (along with definitions of legal terms), and in particular provide criteria that must be met (sometimes with alternatives, e.g. direct vs constructive possession) in order to find the defendant guilty of a crime. https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf is probably pretty similar to what the jury might expect to see. As for intent being hard to prove: you are approximately never going to have direct evidence regarding intent. The prosecution can try to establish intent through circumstantial evidence from which the jury can make a reasonable inference. Again, paraphrasing the judge: if you see someone come into the courtroom with wet clothes and shaking water off an umbrella, you can infer that it was raining. Similarly, if the prosecution establishes that Trump took specific actions that could not be reasonably interpreted in a different way other than being made intentionally, or that there were too many of these unlikely occurrences for it to be coincidental, then the jury may use that to establish intent. Further, note that ignorance of the law is not a defense. You can bet that the prosecution's case is going to center around providing evidence to directly prove those points, regardless of any narrative the lawyers on either side want to spin. At least in our case, we were instructed only to use evidence as presented in exhibits and per witness testimony. Any of the words of the lawyers (questioning, or even opening statements / closing arguments) were not allowed to be considered. The closing arguments are essentially suggestions re: how to view the evidence. One last note: you cited that a class E felony in NY has a mandatory minimum of 1 year. Even if Trump is convicted of 30 class E felonies, those can be served concurrently, so theoretically the judge could hand down a sentence of 1 year prison time if he so desired. I think that's highly unlikely, but it is possible.
mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. - I believe (common sense here) that campaign finance funds have to be kept separate from personal or business funds, as in different accounts. Depending on the laws in various states the laws may require disclosure forms of funds into/out of the accounts, etc. Its likely that this is technical and could be traceable - if the funds for hush money came from a campaign finance account through his attorney and noted as such its probably not a case that is worth trying. That doesn't appear to be illegal, its a (morally questionable) campaign line item. If the source of the funds was from a personal/business account then that could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account. This kinda sounds like how they got Al Capone on tax evasion and not the myriad of other potential crimes. I'm not comparing the people, just my layman knowledge of the cases.
- nullc 4y ago
  > could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money? Do candidates have to report all their food expenditures as campaign funding-- since they obviously couldn't campaign if they don't eat? :)
  - mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
    I think it might be more like a business expense report when you travel. If I'm on a business trip and get a coffee, that's a business expense because I'm traveling for the purposes of work. If I'm working from home and go get a coffee, that's not a business expense. Replace business expense with campaign expense and there are likely rules about what a campaign can pay for and what it can't as well as rules around using personal money for campaign expenses, subverting the necessary disclosure rules. I read a headline just a bit ago that there were 34 counts in the indictment so I'm guessing what they found spans more than a single transaction.
dr-detroit 4y ago
[dead]
barbacoa 4y ago
It's worth mentioning that the former senator John Edwards was prosecuted for a similar hush money case. It ended in a acquittal on some and mistrial on other charges. The issue was that it is not obvious what he was alleged to have done was even a crime. And Trump's case is even weaker than that of John Edwards.
dev_daftly 4y ago
This is the same he law he supposedly broke. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d...
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Have you looked into why the FEC did not fine Trump?
codeddesign 4y ago
Hillary Clinton: Charged with $113,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Obama: Charged with $375,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Regardless of how you vote, this is a political stunt and witch hunt. Next Biden will be indicted when he leaves office, then the next opponent, and so on… This is an extremely dangerous precedence that will do nothing but fuel both sides.
- happythebob 4y ago
  This topic is a joke, since when does Hacker News consist of posters who don't understand the concept of a Grand Jury?
- themitigating 4y ago
  Showing that democrats were also pursued doesn't help your case. I hope it fuels both sides.
  - codeddesign 4y ago
    Actually it does. If we want to hold people accountable, then the same charges should have been brought against Clinton and Obama. This is a stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
I found this [0] to be interesting, however, because I'm not well versed in law, I'm still unclear on a lot. Maybe a real lawyer could weigh in? [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/ https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-fo...
toss1 4y ago
>>this seems like a weak case to me. Said another commenter who, like everyone else outside of the DA's office, has literally no data on what is in the now-reported to be 34 indictments. >> hard to parse the above, but it sounds very technical So, "I don't know what I'm talking about, generally don't like it, so I'll just call it weak.", is itself a very weak statement. It is extremely unlikely that this reluctant prosecutor would go to the mat with a weak case around one event such as a payoff to one woman, even if it was done in a way to violate tax and campaign finance laws. We know no details, but there are clues in the public domain. The same DA office already convicted the Trump Organization on 17 counts and got the maximum fines [0]. There were witnisses called before the Grand Jury who would have spoken to much more than a single payoff scheme. There were multiple women, and David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, who was known to have paid for and killed multiple scandalous stories on Trump's behalf, and Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, who plead guilty in a 15-year Trump Org Tax Scheme. Based on this, it is a reasonable inference to expect charges of a years-long conspiracy to commit tax, business, and campaign fraud. I suppose if you consider white-collar crime "technical" and therefore weak, any such indictments would be weak. But in terms of the actual strength of the case, based both on that DA's record of convictions, and the historic profile of this case (and the career-terminating consequences of losing it), they would not be bringing charges unless they thought they were extremely strong and they were extremely confident of winning. [0]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-organization-sentenced-tax-fraud-conviction/story?id=96394835 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-organization-sentenced...
- srotajuu 4y ago
  > 34 indictments A word of caution, 11 of those counts likely correspond to the 11 reimbursements of Cohen. There are likely many repeated actions which all work together as a unit. So I wouldn't make too much of the number until we have more information.
freejazz 4y ago
>Overall this seems like a weak case to me. His attorney already went to jail over this and if he wasn't president, he'd have been charged years ago.
mcv 4y ago
From what I understand, it's a big violation of campaign finance laws, and it's what Michael Cohen already went to prison for. It's certainly not the worst of Trump's crimes, but it's weird that Cohen went to prison so quickly, but it took years before Trump himself was finally indicted. Surely if Cohen was guilty, then so was Trump?! The entire impossibility of prosecuting Trump is weird to me. There's a host of crimes to pick from, from using/withholding already approved support for Ukraine to bribe/blackmail Zelensky for personal gain (dirt on a political opponent), to pressuring people to violate election laws, to instigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, to keeping hundreds of highly classified documents in his basement and lying about it when he's requested to return them. Lots of people have gone to prison much quicker for a fraction of this. So why is it so hard to prosecute a president or former president? It really feels like he is above the law, and lots of people want presidents to be above the law, apparently.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > There's a host of crimes to pick from The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that the evidence of those crimes is even weaker than this (already pretty weak) charge.
  - mcv 4y ago
    A more reasonable conclusion is that there's incredible resistance to prosecuting former presidents. He's the first, and he's not the first president who has committed a crime. Are (ex-)presidents above the law?
  - srotajuu 4y ago
    Another reasonable conclusion is that more complex or serious crimes take more time to investigate and prosecute. There's a lot we don't know, and I would caution you against drawing "the only reasonable conclusion" from extremely limited evidence.
kelthan 4y ago
The reason nobody is reporting on the actual charges (other than that there are ~30 of them) is because Grand Jury indictments are sealed until the suspect has been arraigned. There is speculation that many of the charges are related to falsifying business records to cover up the payment, which would explain the number of charges involved. If true, then this case has parallels with what happened with Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinski case: it wasn't the affair that was criminal act, it was the coverup after the fact. Based on one article that quoted an anonymous source from one of Trump's advisors or confidants, said that they are working toward an arraignment on Tuesday. But it's a high profile case with exceptional circumstances--namely the involvement of the Secret Service--so we should probably take that date with a grain of salt.
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  To be fair to Bill, he asked for a definition of "sex" and the definition he was given did not include a blowjob as part of that definition. Everybody else knows that a blowjob is a sexual act (when I lived in Florida, it was listed as "sodomy" but then if you weren't a married couple, everything other than "missionary" was defined as "sodomy").
- runnerup 4y ago
  > it wasn't the affair that was criminal act I always thought this was bullshit, despite being otherwise happy with bill Clinton’s presidential leadership. To me it seemed bill was in a position of power over Monica and it’s a clear case of statutory rape. To me (as a personal opinion).
florbnit 4y ago
> So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. It’s funny how so many people think less of this crime because the misappropriated campaign funds where used for something so redicules, compared to if it had been just plainly stolen or used to buy a luxury car or something like that.

sanderjd 4y ago

The theory as I understand it is that the payment was a large unreported contribution to his presidential campaign. It's not legal to do that, and the prosecutors believe they can demonstrate that's what happened.

AustinDev 4y ago
Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines. `The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm was in turn paid $175,000 by the campaign and about $850,000 by the party during six weeks in July and August 2016. Campaign spending disclosure reports described most of those payments to Perkins Coie as having been for “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”` https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-campaign-spending.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clint...
- sanderjd 4y ago
  If they're a dime a dozen (I don't think they are), then we should either make sure to provide high visibility instances in order to dissuade others from breaking the law, or we should change the laws if we don't think they are worth enforcing.
  - carlivar 4y ago
    Note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined for a campaign finance violation. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc-clinton-campaign-agree-to-steele-dossier-funding-fine https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc...
    - ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
      How is it relevant what someone else has done to this indictment?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Because it shows politically motivated use of legal power, which is especially bad. I'm all for prosecuting Trump and Clinton and all the rest of them, but to only prosecute Trump when there's a sea of malfeasance stinking up the place seems like an overwhelmingly bad idea.
        XorNot 4y ago
        How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
        koolba 4y ago
        > How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). > Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits. Which do you consider a more direct violation of campaign finance law with direct intent to benefit a campaign? 1. Paying a lawyer to pay a woman to not speak about an elicit affair from a decade prior. 2. Paying a lawyer to pay a private investigator to compile a negative dossier about your political opponent in the, at the time, current US general election.

notch898a 4y ago

I'm probably wrong, but google indicates statute of limitations for misdemeanors is only 2 years in New York. Curious how this ties into things, the stormy daniels fiasco is what 5+ years ago? Surely there is a felony charge in there?

shagie 4y ago
I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). (late edit - it was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 - not the YouTube link) The statue of limitations in New York doesn't accumulate when the defendant is outside of the state. I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube. > I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page legal opinion just to figure out what you already seem to know.
  - shagie 4y ago
    I was mistaken on the link - my comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 (alas, lazy clipboarding and not double checking) Page 18 of ALITO, J., dissenting. It is on page 82 of the pdf overall.
    - notch898a 4y ago

ncallaway 4y ago

> describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. That's because the charges haven't been announced yet. The facts that we know are that a grand jury has voted to indict Donald Trump and has delivered a True Bill to the prosecutors. The indictment is at this moment sealed. It should be unsealed shortly (speculation was a timeline of tonight/tomorrow, but I could also see it being early next week). So, it's not known publicly what the specific charges are. Which is why people haven't described them in this thread. They're not yet known. > most stories are vague. This is partly because there's not a lot of information, but it's also because the news media needs to pump out an endless amount of content around this story (since it's both historic, and they have a profit incentive to keep people reading/watching), but there's really only a few paragraphs* of information that's currently available or relevant. > It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. The speculated charges (which, again, are speculation, not the known public charges) involve a crime which is, on its own, a misdemeanor. The crime becomes a felony if it was committed with intent to commit another crime. So, if (and again, this is a big if, since it's not the actual charges, just speculation) the prosecutors are going down that road, they don't actually have to prove two crimes. They have to prove the first crime and intent to commit another crime. They don't actually have to prove the facts of the second crime. > Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Intent is hard to prove, but it's also something that gets proved in court cases frequently. For example, murder is (in almost all states) an intent crime. Prosecutors are still able to charge and convict on murder. So, while an intent element makes a case harder to make, it doesn't by default make it impossible. For a crime similar to the being speculated about, consider Breaking and Entering. In many states a B&E is only a crime if it's done with the intent to commit another crime (in Washington state, for example, this is "Residential burglary" RCW 9A.52.025†). But if someone is caught breaking into a property at night with a ski mask and a burlap sack, prosecutors won't find it a challenge to demonstrate the requisite intent. > Overall this seems like a weak case to me. I think it's really too early to say at this point. I'd at least wait until the indictment is unsealed and released publicly so we can know the actual charges. Once we know the charges, and a summary of the available evidence, we'd be in a much better position to make a claim about the quality of the case. * There's really only a single sentence of _news_ to report, but there's probably a decent amount of explaining the process that can reasonably happen, since most people aren't familiar with the details of the process. † https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52&full=true#9A.52.025 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.52&full=true...

vharuck 4y ago

>It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Michael Cohen pled guilty and was sentenced to three years for the campaign finance law, and he's been very vocal about Trump's knowledge and involvement. So proving intent doesn't seem impossible. And, by definition, falsifying business records comes with a record of false information.

guelo 4y ago
I've seen arguments in the right-ophere that Cohen improperly plead guilty to a non-crime. Which seems like a weird thing for a high-level well-connected lawyer to do.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  Cohen was not crime lawyer. And any high-level lawyer will tell you that even them will not represent themselves in a criminal investigation nor are they immune from make false confessions under the pressure of the federal government.
- roenxi 4y ago
  There was a fairly effective push to dismantle groups linked to Trump's electoral success [0]. They had a similar air of bullshit charges that only became an issue because prosecutors wanted to achieve political ends. It is weird, but it is likely he is being threatened. If they can get Trump arrested for this, they can certainly put Cohen in jeopardy. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html?mtrref=duckduckgo.com&gwh=8FFFF3C458157262674CFD8DADD4245F&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-tr... EDIT Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#2022_New_York_state_indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#2022_New_York_sta... is probably going to fall into the same basket
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Worth mentioning that Stormy Daniels claims that she and her child were threatened over this issue. > 'Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.' And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, 'That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom.' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-alleged-affair-cbs-60-minutes-threatened-car-parking-lot-daughter-a8273586.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stormy-dan...

analog31 4y ago

From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us. Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought in the first place? That's a question I don't know how to answer, for any "white collar" or prominent defendant.

brigandish 4y ago
How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?
- unixgoddess 4y ago
  same question here...
  - pseingatl 4y ago
    Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...

paul7986 4y ago

No Trump fan but this is more political/media theater B.S. and brought on by all his many deep pocketed enemies. He surely has tons due to his awful mouth (shut it and do your job like Biden does for the people or Bush did or Obama). Nothing will happen to him just more lame reality TV type drama that gets ratings.

tpoacher 4y ago
Worse. As many have pointed out: "If he gets arrested, he's your next president." Wouldn't be the first leader whose arrest led to raging popularity and revolt.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Prominent Republicans (like John Bolton) have claimed that Democrats are intentionally targetting Trump to increase his popularity with his base so that he'll definately become the nominee and then be easy to beat. Whether you believe that or not, its wild that we're in such a position that claims like that could be made.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Democrats explicitly had commercials pumping up Trump aligned Republicans in Senate primary races in swing states because Democrats thought they would be easier to defeat (they were right).
  - esja 4y ago
    It's not wild. It's precisely what they did in 2015, as revealed by WikiLeaks: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Wow...who needs friends with enemies like that. But jeez...you'd think they would have at least learned their lesson. I was pretty convinced 2 years ago (around the time of the injecting hydrochloric acid comments) that Trump would be almost universally be considered a national embarrassment by now. If there weren't powerful people running around deliberately trying to inflate support for him hoping it will somehow work out in their own interests I'm still pretty sure he would be.

wodenokoto 4y ago

My understanding from legal eagle on YouTube is that the payment was done illegally. Both in terms of taxes and in terms of how you are allowed to spend money on campaigning (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign)

eldritch_4ier 4y ago
[flagged]
- watwut 4y ago
  All of that might be objective. Not liking a lot what Republicans do does not mean you are unfairly biased.
- Seam0nkey 4y ago
  >he doesn't like laws that go after social media platforms From a legal perspective you don't gotta be biased to reach the conclusion that there's not much states can do. Section 230 and and the 1st amendment are both crazy strong tools in their pockets.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Trump has made it impossible for anyone to remain unbiased about Trump.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  Did you watch his video? LegalEagle thinks the charges against Trump have serious weaknesses. Perhaps not as biased as you think.
  - HelloNurse 4y ago
    It is possible to be both biased (hoping that the charges against Trump stick) and realistic (assessing on the basis of professional expertise that the charges aren't as strong as one would like). I'm under the impression that unfortunately such a basic level of maturity is unusual when USA politics and USA law are concerned, let alone the combination of both.

jmyeet 4y ago

It's too early to say if it's a weak case because we just don't know the details. There are (AFAIK unconfirmed) reports that there are 34 charges in the indictment. You wouldn't get that just from the Stormy Daniels payoff so, if true, there's more to this indictment. Maybe related to the Trump Organization fraud? We can only speculate. This will be unsealed when Trump is processed and arraigned. I believe this is set for Tuesday. Note that processing includes the mug shot, fingerprinting and DNA. My understanding is the payoff was upgraded to a felony because it had to be. If it were a misdemeanour it would be beyond the statute of limitations. So this isn't even a case where the prosecutor has "insurance" with a lesser charge. A felony seems to require actual intent, as in knowing this would impact the election. Whose to say it wasn't done to protect his marriage, for example? Of course, there may be evidence to support this. But I have trouble believing the Manhattan DA would indict just on this (alleged) offence. There has to be more to this. Hopefully we'll learn a lot more next week.

unit_circle 4y ago
This is really all that's worth saying until next week
mike_d 4y ago
> Note that processing includes the mug shot, fingerprinting and DNA. He fought E Jean Carroll for three years to avoid giving a DNA sample that could have proved his guilt or innocence in the sexual assault case. Once he is booked he will have a record in the national DNA database (CODIS) that can be checked against any physical evidence such as Carroll's dress as well as outstanding unsolved cases.

TeeMassive 4y ago

Just the statute of limitation should have made any judge laugh. It's the justice system of New York state that's on trial, not Trump.

dbbk 4y ago
It's well within the statute of limitations for 2 reasons; 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  > 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID for some civil cases, not criminal ones: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tollin... > 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused Surely you must be trolling? I mean gee, all these Ivy League law professors (most of them not being Trump supporters) must not have been aware of that, somehow...
  - dbbk 4y ago
    In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up. Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      > In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up. Actually I did, even if the burden of proof was on you. And no, statute of limitation doesn't "pause" for criminal cases for any reasons as for the reason of their existence is memories and evidence fading over time and to avoid wrongful convictions. Being out of state has no effect on that. > Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired. That's not the only novel legal theory being at play to convict for the first time a President here.

asudosandwich 4y ago

The punctuated green site from yesteryear had a special moderation carve-out for funny comments distinct from the insightful contributors to keep things on track and interesting. But the parent poster dignifies neither and is better deserving of an Onion headline IMHO. >> I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments >> I'm not a lawyer and it's hard to parse the above. >> Overall this seems like a weak comment to me.

anonymousiam 4y ago

The indictment was filed under seal, so why does CNN and the New York Times know what's in it?

thelittleone 4y ago
"Sources"
- happythebob 4y ago
  Thanks for your curious conversation. This is what Hacker News is all about.
public_defender 4y ago
Think of it like a book where the publisher releases a preview chapter. There are hints in the court record which, despite sealing of an indictment, would give a determined investigator enough information to speculate on the charges in the grand jury. The DA office probably just provided the media with some top-line updates on the process so that there would be a general understanding of the big news to head off speculation or a leak.
dev_daftly 4y ago
Because they leaked what they think is the most damaging information to their propaganda arm

unixgoddess 4y ago

that's how it seems to me too, but CNN claims "30 counts", so hopefully they have more to it. If they only have a weak case, it will be easy to pass it as an attempt to prevent him from running 2024, so it will only serve to further polarize the country

oxfordmale 4y ago

If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? I understand even his loyal voter base are now sometimes embarrassed by his actions. For example, him storing confidential papers at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency finished. That is different from when he was first elected as President. At that time he couldn't do anything wrong. I am sure the right wing press will spin this as a witch hunt, but will it fly with the voters on the ground? Does anyone have more insight in this?

ModernMech 4y ago
> If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? Trump organized a violent coup against his own government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his political rival. So will his indictment over an unrelated crime help his campaign? No. It's hosed from the start. Because he organized a coup against the government, and everyone saw it on TV.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of people are HAPPY he did those things
  - srotajuu 4y ago
    About 40% of those who are politically engaged, which is pretty consistent with his popular vote share of 45-47%, to his opponents' 48-51%. It'll come down to the campaigns and the electoral college. He is not sure to be defeated but he will continue to be an underdog unless he broadens his message.
norwalkbear 4y ago
It's weak case that has unified the party and base around Trump. Desantis fought with Trump two days ago, is now about him like a dear friend. If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here. Bragg literally campaigned on arresting Trump too.

darthrupert 4y ago

Is it possible that this would be simply an opening to gain further investigative access? Like how Al Capone was caught for tax issues?

protocolture 4y ago

Yes it seems weak. However: 1 iirc Grand Jury's are the ones that get to do everything behind closed doors. So we wouldnt know if they had a smoking gun until after trial possibly. 2 The US has a history of pursuing people it doesn't like through financial crimes. Rico etc. I think its easy to see this in the lens of "oh its another attack on trump that will go away again" and if you experience your entire life through the highs and lows of the media cycle thats quite possibly going to be the case. But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with.

mightybyte 4y ago
> But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with. The thing that surprised me yesterday was learning that being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President of the United States! So it seems like a pretty impotent "hanging". I had assumed that barring him from running for re-election was the major motivation behind pursing these indictments, but I guess that's not the case. So that suggests that these moves are mainly about public opinion? If that's what it is, then this particular indictment seems like the weakest of the possible ones that have been talked about. Taking all this into account, I can't help but think that this kind of plays into Trump's desire to be the center of attention.
- vitus 4y ago
  > being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office This depends on the state. Being convicted of a felony in Florida bars you from running for public office or voting in the state (until granted clemency). A conviction in Georgia would similarly bar Trump from voting in Florida, but not one in New York (which does not disenfranchise felons). But yes, it doesn't affect his ability to run for federal office, even if it would make it hard for him to campaign from jail.
- mrguyorama 4y ago

raxxorraxor 4y ago

To me this also pales on comparison to investment benefits legislature seems to enjoy a little too much. This is not the core problem of corrupt politics.

dbbk 4y ago

The gist of it is, the hush money payments were covered up by filing false business records claiming it was for "lawyer's fees". That's the first issue. The second issue is that it can be considered an improper campaign contribution because it was to benefit the campaign. In order for it to be a felony, you need to connect the two together. Otherwise it's a misdemeanour. In terms of it being a "weak case", I would just say let's wait to see what the prosecutors' argument is - this will be released when the indictment is unsealed on Thursday. It's a document-heavy case. There is a witness who carried out the crime (Michael Cohen), and other witnesses as well. I would also posit that the prosecutors, and a grand jury (who unanimously voted to indict) would not take the unprecedented step to charge a former President unless they thought there was a strong case. So, let's just wait and see.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
[flagged]
cxf12 4y ago
Cohen plead guilty to the hush money as an excessive personal campaign contribution. Going forward, it's not likely that the contribution can be recharacterized for the purposes of charging DJT with a crime. This case is going to be tossed out of court.
firstlink 4y ago
> lawyer's fees This seems to be a very popular way to label questionable payments during presidential campaigns, given that both major candidates did it in 2016.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

biorach 4y ago

> Overall this seems like a weak case to me. The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2] > Prosecuting Mr Trump for the campaign-finance violation relies on a convoluted argument. In 2016 Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer (who later went to prison himself), paid $130,000 to Ms Daniels out of his own pocket. Mr Trump allegedly reimbursed Mr Cohen with payments disguised as routine legal expenses. Falsifying business records can be a misdemeanour under New York law. The felony indictment would indicate that prosecutors are going to argue that the minor crime facilitated a more serious one: failing to declare the payment, which was made a few weeks before the election, as a de facto campaign expense. > The payment probably did benefit the campaign and it was indeed undeclared. Mr Cohen, the lawyer, pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance law. But legal theory for prosecuting Mr Trump in Manhattan is untested. The campaign-finance rules that he may have broken are federal. The accounting rule is a state one. Linking the two in this way is unusual, and a judge may decide it is unwarranted. And today it has a leader [3], archived at [4] which goes into greater detail, and concludes > If Mr Trump is to be prosecuted, it should be for something that cannot be dismissed as a technicality, and where the law is clearer. The Manhattan DA’s case looks like a mistake. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.econo... [3] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-don... [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.econo...

happythebob 4y ago
Weak consequences doesn't mean legal. One state investigation has no impact on the others.
abustamam 4y ago
The second archived link seems to still be pay walled. Here's a mirror just in case https://archive.is/0rJIh https://archive.is/0rJIh

vitus 4y ago

As other commenters have pointed out, the actual indictment is sealed, so we won't find out the concrete charges until he's arraigned. I've recently served on a jury for a criminal trial, so I've learned some things about the process that courtroom dramas did not teach me. One: stacked charges (in this case, 30+) can indicate repeat offenses of the same crime / crimes on separate occasions (usually denoted as separate dates). I do not think this is simply a matter of a single hush money payout (or two, as has been reported in the news). I would not be surprised if there are 10 or more distinct events in play. edit: Note that the jury can render separate verdicts for each charge if desired. Two: the grand jury merely decides whether there's enough evidence to bring this to trial. The standard of evidence for a grand jury is much lower than the actual trial jury. Three: this is more theoretical because I'd be surprised if this happens, but the defendant in any criminal proceeding is more than entitled to neither testify on his own behalf, and the defense is not required to call any witnesses to the stand, as the presumption is that Trump is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Four: I'm going to paraphrase the judge in my case slightly, but "beyond an unreasonable doubt does not mean beyond any possible doubt. There is always going to be some shred of doubt. Beyond an unreasonable doubt means that you have a moral conviction that the defendant committed the alleged crimes." > it sounds very technical That's totally expected, as is the case for even the most mundane-seeming laws. The jury is not expected to have a legal background. The judge will instruct them regarding the points of the law (along with definitions of legal terms), and in particular provide criteria that must be met (sometimes with alternatives, e.g. direct vs constructive possession) in order to find the defendant guilty of a crime. https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf is probably pretty similar to what the jury might expect to see. As for intent being hard to prove: you are approximately never going to have direct evidence regarding intent. The prosecution can try to establish intent through circumstantial evidence from which the jury can make a reasonable inference. Again, paraphrasing the judge: if you see someone come into the courtroom with wet clothes and shaking water off an umbrella, you can infer that it was raining. Similarly, if the prosecution establishes that Trump took specific actions that could not be reasonably interpreted in a different way other than being made intentionally, or that there were too many of these unlikely occurrences for it to be coincidental, then the jury may use that to establish intent. Further, note that ignorance of the law is not a defense. You can bet that the prosecution's case is going to center around providing evidence to directly prove those points, regardless of any narrative the lawyers on either side want to spin. At least in our case, we were instructed only to use evidence as presented in exhibits and per witness testimony. Any of the words of the lawyers (questioning, or even opening statements / closing arguments) were not allowed to be considered. The closing arguments are essentially suggestions re: how to view the evidence. One last note: you cited that a class E felony in NY has a mandatory minimum of 1 year. Even if Trump is convicted of 30 class E felonies, those can be served concurrently, so theoretically the judge could hand down a sentence of 1 year prison time if he so desired. I think that's highly unlikely, but it is possible.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. - I believe (common sense here) that campaign finance funds have to be kept separate from personal or business funds, as in different accounts. Depending on the laws in various states the laws may require disclosure forms of funds into/out of the accounts, etc. Its likely that this is technical and could be traceable - if the funds for hush money came from a campaign finance account through his attorney and noted as such its probably not a case that is worth trying. That doesn't appear to be illegal, its a (morally questionable) campaign line item. If the source of the funds was from a personal/business account then that could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account. This kinda sounds like how they got Al Capone on tax evasion and not the myriad of other potential crimes. I'm not comparing the people, just my layman knowledge of the cases.

nullc 4y ago
> could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money? Do candidates have to report all their food expenditures as campaign funding-- since they obviously couldn't campaign if they don't eat? :)
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  I think it might be more like a business expense report when you travel. If I'm on a business trip and get a coffee, that's a business expense because I'm traveling for the purposes of work. If I'm working from home and go get a coffee, that's not a business expense. Replace business expense with campaign expense and there are likely rules about what a campaign can pay for and what it can't as well as rules around using personal money for campaign expenses, subverting the necessary disclosure rules. I read a headline just a bit ago that there were 34 counts in the indictment so I'm guessing what they found spans more than a single transaction.

dr-detroit 4y ago

[dead]

barbacoa 4y ago

It's worth mentioning that the former senator John Edwards was prosecuted for a similar hush money case. It ended in a acquittal on some and mistrial on other charges. The issue was that it is not obvious what he was alleged to have done was even a crime. And Trump's case is even weaker than that of John Edwards.

dev_daftly 4y ago

This is the same he law he supposedly broke. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d...

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Have you looked into why the FEC did not fine Trump?

codeddesign 4y ago

Hillary Clinton: Charged with $113,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Obama: Charged with $375,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Regardless of how you vote, this is a political stunt and witch hunt. Next Biden will be indicted when he leaves office, then the next opponent, and so on… This is an extremely dangerous precedence that will do nothing but fuel both sides.

happythebob 4y ago
This topic is a joke, since when does Hacker News consist of posters who don't understand the concept of a Grand Jury?
themitigating 4y ago
Showing that democrats were also pursued doesn't help your case. I hope it fuels both sides.
- codeddesign 4y ago
  Actually it does. If we want to hold people accountable, then the same charges should have been brought against Clinton and Obama. This is a stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

I found this [0] to be interesting, however, because I'm not well versed in law, I'm still unclear on a lot. Maybe a real lawyer could weigh in? [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/ https://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-fo...

toss1 4y ago

>>this seems like a weak case to me. Said another commenter who, like everyone else outside of the DA's office, has literally no data on what is in the now-reported to be 34 indictments. >> hard to parse the above, but it sounds very technical So, "I don't know what I'm talking about, generally don't like it, so I'll just call it weak.", is itself a very weak statement. It is extremely unlikely that this reluctant prosecutor would go to the mat with a weak case around one event such as a payoff to one woman, even if it was done in a way to violate tax and campaign finance laws. We know no details, but there are clues in the public domain. The same DA office already convicted the Trump Organization on 17 counts and got the maximum fines [0]. There were witnisses called before the Grand Jury who would have spoken to much more than a single payoff scheme. There were multiple women, and David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, who was known to have paid for and killed multiple scandalous stories on Trump's behalf, and Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, who plead guilty in a 15-year Trump Org Tax Scheme. Based on this, it is a reasonable inference to expect charges of a years-long conspiracy to commit tax, business, and campaign fraud. I suppose if you consider white-collar crime "technical" and therefore weak, any such indictments would be weak. But in terms of the actual strength of the case, based both on that DA's record of convictions, and the historic profile of this case (and the career-terminating consequences of losing it), they would not be bringing charges unless they thought they were extremely strong and they were extremely confident of winning. [0]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-organization-sentenced-tax-fraud-conviction/story?id=96394835 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-organization-sentenced...

srotajuu 4y ago
> 34 indictments A word of caution, 11 of those counts likely correspond to the 11 reimbursements of Cohen. There are likely many repeated actions which all work together as a unit. So I wouldn't make too much of the number until we have more information.

freejazz 4y ago

>Overall this seems like a weak case to me. His attorney already went to jail over this and if he wasn't president, he'd have been charged years ago.

mcv 4y ago

From what I understand, it's a big violation of campaign finance laws, and it's what Michael Cohen already went to prison for. It's certainly not the worst of Trump's crimes, but it's weird that Cohen went to prison so quickly, but it took years before Trump himself was finally indicted. Surely if Cohen was guilty, then so was Trump?! The entire impossibility of prosecuting Trump is weird to me. There's a host of crimes to pick from, from using/withholding already approved support for Ukraine to bribe/blackmail Zelensky for personal gain (dirt on a political opponent), to pressuring people to violate election laws, to instigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, to keeping hundreds of highly classified documents in his basement and lying about it when he's requested to return them. Lots of people have gone to prison much quicker for a fraction of this. So why is it so hard to prosecute a president or former president? It really feels like he is above the law, and lots of people want presidents to be above the law, apparently.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> There's a host of crimes to pick from The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that the evidence of those crimes is even weaker than this (already pretty weak) charge.
- mcv 4y ago
  A more reasonable conclusion is that there's incredible resistance to prosecuting former presidents. He's the first, and he's not the first president who has committed a crime. Are (ex-)presidents above the law?
- srotajuu 4y ago
  Another reasonable conclusion is that more complex or serious crimes take more time to investigate and prosecute. There's a lot we don't know, and I would caution you against drawing "the only reasonable conclusion" from extremely limited evidence.

kelthan 4y ago

The reason nobody is reporting on the actual charges (other than that there are ~30 of them) is because Grand Jury indictments are sealed until the suspect has been arraigned. There is speculation that many of the charges are related to falsifying business records to cover up the payment, which would explain the number of charges involved. If true, then this case has parallels with what happened with Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinski case: it wasn't the affair that was criminal act, it was the coverup after the fact. Based on one article that quoted an anonymous source from one of Trump's advisors or confidants, said that they are working toward an arraignment on Tuesday. But it's a high profile case with exceptional circumstances--namely the involvement of the Secret Service--so we should probably take that date with a grain of salt.

Tangurena2 4y ago
To be fair to Bill, he asked for a definition of "sex" and the definition he was given did not include a blowjob as part of that definition. Everybody else knows that a blowjob is a sexual act (when I lived in Florida, it was listed as "sodomy" but then if you weren't a married couple, everything other than "missionary" was defined as "sodomy").
runnerup 4y ago
> it wasn't the affair that was criminal act I always thought this was bullshit, despite being otherwise happy with bill Clinton’s presidential leadership. To me it seemed bill was in a position of power over Monica and it’s a clear case of statutory rape. To me (as a personal opinion).

florbnit 4y ago

> So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. It’s funny how so many people think less of this crime because the misappropriated campaign funds where used for something so redicules, compared to if it had been just plainly stolen or used to buy a luxury car or something like that.